StrategyWiki talk:Community Portal/2007/August

Thumbnail size standardization/policy

Recently Procyon or Prod informed me that thumbnails get resized as to user preference (which I have now customized to my liking). Thus, when using thumbnails shouldn't we forget about using the #px parameter? --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 17:37, 6 August 2007 (CDT)

I may be mistaken, but I'm fairly sure the thumbnail sizing would only affect thumbnails that lack the width parameter. Regardless, a lot of people don't sign up or don't change that setting, so for them the images will still appear as intended. Garrett^Talk 18:03, 6 August 2007 (CDT)

I'm all for dropping the "*px" parameter; I've never used it, and I've removed it from every guide I've cleaned up if it's been used in conjunction with "thumb". --DrBob (Talk) 18:17, 6 August 2007 (CDT)

Yeah, once logged in it doesn't make a difference, and the default size is good enough for it, so I'd say drop it. If at all possible, we should have any image that uses the #px or #em (as em is accepted with thumbs as well, I believe) be categorized in some category so a bot can take care of removing them. --

Safety Skizzerz ^{Talk · Contribs · Spel Chek™ · VFG · RTFM} 18:36, 6 August 2007 (CDT)

Garrett, yeah. What I'm saying is "DROP THE WIDTH PARAMETER ON THUMBNAILS!" We don't need it. --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 19:18, 6 August 2007 (CDT)

Time out... I need it. It's really valuable for maps. I use it through Pokemon RBY and Link to the Past. NMH, I mentioned that for you because you were slamming some thumbs to 150px, and that seemed to be your "default" size, so all I meant was let the user settings determine the default size. I did compliment you on your choice of selecting certain key screenshots to be 250px. It's up to you if you want to keep that or not, but I choose very specific thumb widths for a lot of maps. So I would say if all you're thumbing are screenshots, leave the width parameter out. If it's something else, and you have a valid reason for setting it, we shouldn't take that ability away. Procyon (Talk) 22:14, 6 August 2007 (CDT)

I think what people need to understand is the difference between thumbnails, and images in general. Images are only thumbnails if you use the "thumb" parameter; and if they're a thumbnail, I think you shouldn't set a specific size for them. If they're not thumbnails, then setting a size is fine (or they'll consume all the space they can). --DrBob (Talk) 04:37, 7 August 2007 (CDT)

Piggy-backing on DrBob's point, there are regular images, frames, and thumbs. An image can be resized, but you don't get a caption. A frame gives you a caption, but can't be resized. I tend to go with thumbs because you get the best of both features. You can resize it, and you can give it a caption, which tends to be useful for labeling maps. Procyon (Talk) 08:57, 7 August 2007 (CDT)

The thumbnail size parameter is a feature, not a bug. There's no point standardizing it apart from a few places. Boxart I think is set to 250px, but other than that it's up to the writer. Every policy has to be policed, and a policy like this could go wrong quite easily. -- Prod (Talk) 22:22, 6 August 2007 (CDT)

And this is why I started the discussion. At the time I couldn't think of any reason why we would need to specify it, even on large pictures like the maps of LTTP, but yeah I see that they are good and that we need it for stuff like boxart, etc. Now, as Procyon says and I totally agree with, "I would say if all you're thumbing are screenshots, leave the width parameter out." Excuse me for being so rash with my words, I didn't really mean "cut it out;" I was just forgetting where it becomes useful. --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 22:53, 6 August 2007 (CDT)

More Infobox improvements

I think it would be a good idea if we modified the {{infobox}} so that it automatically categorised a page as Category:Pages needing an infobox if certain parameters weren't filled out. The list of parameters I've got so far is:

title
developer
publisher
released
genre
systems

I'm primarily looking for feedback on the list of parameters, but feedback on the idea itself is welcome. --DrBob (Talk) 16:45, 9 August 2007 (CDT)

First of all, great idea. This way we can reduce the number of edits and extra 9 characters per main page. Secondly, we don't need the japanese title as a requirement. I think we only need the title, publisher (easier to find than developer at times), release date, genre and system. Developer could be required, but the publisher is usually the one that people find out most easily (online games, for example, always have a publisher however the developer is sometimes hidden). But hey, this can be rare at times so... it's up to everyone except me. --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 23:49, 9 August 2007 (CDT)

I've implemented it, using the original list of parameters, since they're the parameters which are never hidden (i.e. the row is displayed in the infobox even if no value is given). --DrBob (Talk) 16:36, 10 August 2007 (CDT)

Misspelling Corrections - Everything?

I was wondering what you guys thought about fixing literally 99% of the spelling mistakes on SW (we can't get rid of the ones listed on the Mispellings page). Besides guides/image pages, what about user pages and talk pages? I'm requesting that we allow everything be spellchecked 1) to make my spell check (and others') job easier and 2) to make everything more accurate. The second point is definitely not as strong, but the first is. Right now for some words we have like 1-25 pages that are talk or user page related. In another 1400 guide pages how many do you think we'll have? It could get messy, and everytime we go to spellcheck we have to go slowly through the list to identify what pages need it or not (not that we aren't careful anyways). It's minor, but is anyone against it? --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 19:03, 9 August 2007 (CDT)

I'm against this. However much I'd like to correct everyone's spelling and grammar, it's rude and unnecessary to fix misspellings on talk pages. You should be able to exclude talk pages from the search results by limiting the search to the main namespace. --DrBob (Talk) 04:01, 10 August 2007 (CDT)

i'M knot fore it ether. Eye thnk tat it is a wird idea. On another note, Spel Chek™ FTW! --

Safety Skizzerz ^{Talk · Contribs · Spel Chek™ · VFG · RTFM} 16:22, 10 August 2007 (CDT)

System and Genre portals

Since we have the new system browser, the pages it links to need an overhaul. Right now, they are pretty barebones Category pages, some with a bit of content, like Category:Nintendo GameCube. We should make Portals, like Wikipedia. They still have category pages, but with no extra content. Example: Portal:Arts and Category: Arts. The portal pages are great. They have category specific featured content, a todo list, and a link to the list of articles. We can add top ten lists, and gaming specific things, like the content on GameFAQs' system pages. Example: Wii. Portals would look a lot nicer than our current pages: a dull list of guides, with no way of knowing how finished they are. -- [[ blendmaster | talk ]] 14:41, 11 August 2007 (CDT)

Check what I've done to Category:Nintendo GameCube. -- Prod (Talk) 23:49, 11 August 2007 (CDT)

I like, but I think it's going to be largely ignored if it's on the right. You should make a template for it which uses a coloured border (green? I feel we need some green...) to highlight it, and stick it in the category page itself. --DrBob (Talk) 04:37, 12 August 2007 (CDT)

That would be possible to do, but it needs mode=usermode. Also, the template would work because (*gasp*) DPL actually accepts parameters when used as {{#dpl:}} (which is another way to use it). I'm working on the template right now, it's going to be called, fittingly, {{Portaldpl}}, as it's being used in the 'portals'. --

Safety Skizzerz ^{Talk · Contribs · Spel Chek™ · VFG · RTFM} 10:08, 12 August 2007 (CDT)

It's been superseded by modifications Prod and I have made to {{system}}, which will now display a list of popular guides for the described system in the system's infobox. --DrBob (Talk) 11:40, 12 August 2007 (CDT)

How About a Top Ten

Could the bottom section of Special:Statistics be modified to only include Category:Games and a copy placed on the main page? I really like the top 10 on GameFAQs. If implemented, it would add some mercuriality (there's the word I was looking for) to our otherwise fairly static main page. It would also link to popular content. Like a featured guide, but voted on by pageviews. -- [[ blendmaster | talk ]] 23:11, 8 August 2007 (CDT)

Sadly, I don't think that is possible without code modifications, and we don't really want to start making them. --DrBob (Talk) 07:26, 9 August 2007 (CDT)

We would need the DynamicPageList extension in order to do so, and even then I'm not sure If it would work (link). Special pages are very touchy with what kinds of content you can include in them, as you must edit the MediaWiki namespace to change their content, and there is no documentation out there (that I can find) that explains what all the various strings are (like $1, $2, etc.). Even then, it might require code modification, and that is one thing that should be avoided. --

Safety Skizzerz ^{Talk · Contribs · Spel Chek™ · VFG · RTFM} 10:21, 9 August 2007 (CDT)

I'm not suggesting we change the Special page. I'm suggesting we put a Top 10 on our Main Page. Which is what DynamicPageList would be perfect for, it seems. -- [[ blendmaster | talk ]] 13:20, 9 August 2007 (CDT)

Dan has installed the DPL. Check out the sandbox to see it in action. --

Safety Skizzerz ^{Talk · Contribs · Spel Chek™ · VFG · RTFM} 14:26, 10 August 2007 (CDT)

So, should we put this into Special:Statistics or on the Main Page (or both, or somewhere else, or nowhere)? --

Safety Skizzerz ^{Talk · Contribs · Spel Chek™ · VFG · RTFM} 15:42, 10 August 2007 (CDT)

Main page, for sure. I'll start up another WIP page so we can work on integrating it. The Special pages are hard to change, as you mentioned, so Special:Statistics can stay the same. -- [[ blendmaster | talk ]] 19:35, 10 August 2007 (CDT)

Yes, I thought modifying MediaWiki:Sitestatstext would work, but it doesn't put it in the right location, so we're not putting it on Statistics. --

Safety Skizzerz ^{Talk · Contribs · Spel Chek™ · VFG · RTFM} 19:53, 10 August 2007 (CDT)

I added this to Category:Nintendo GameCube as well. What do you think? -- Prod (Talk) 23:48, 11 August 2007 (CDT)

Nice, maybe the games need a little pic or something e.g link's head but it looks good, needs to stand out a bit more though because first time, i didn't see it.--Rocky

^{(Talk - Contributions)} 04:12, 12 August 2007 (CDT)

I'm not sure if this is the thread I want to be posting in, but I'd just like to point out that DPL is extremely heavy on server resources. I'm even a little motivated to try to get the front page top 10 off the front page. Thus, until we get another server to distribute the processing load, please use DPL sparingly.

(I can see a server crash happening if we were to, say, get dugg. If that's the case, the front page will have to return to being mainly static.)--Dan 08:14, 17 August 2007 (CDT)

Yeah, currently the featured guide thing is also using DPL, although to a lesser extent (it's for the random rotation). I can see why you say it's resource-intensive, considering what it does, but I say we should leave it unless something happens, in which case reverting it is easy. --

Safety Skizzerz ^{Talk · Contribs · Spel Chek™ · VFG · RTFM} 09:17, 17 August 2007 (CDT)

Donate?

I don't mean a big donation drive with a bar at the top of every page, or anything that big. However, some of the more philanthropic people on the internet would probably click a paypal donate button or link, if there was one. How about it? --blendmaster 17:32, 2 July 2007 (CDT)

I'm willing to donate periodically. What I really want is a bluecloud themed SW shirt with admin on the back XD --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 18:36, 2 July 2007 (CDT)

That would be a totally kickass shirt, not to mention it could seriously interest others in joining our cause:

"Hey, where'd you get that shirt?"

"Oh, I got it at this cool website, StrategyWiki.org..."

I like that idea a lot. Perhaps Teddy could bestow upon us some heavenly design of his. echelon_talk 23:09, 2 July 2007 (CDT)

Only for admins? I want one but not with the word "Contributor" or something on it... haha Baejung92 14:30, 3 July 2007 (CDT)

The idea of a shirt is pretty good, though a few diffirent versions would be required. It could be fun to have a few that had odd titles like minion. I would buy one to go be a billboard at some of the local cons in my area. I imagine if we make good guides that leave users satisfied they would want to donate. --Zaiqukaj 03:16, 4 July 2007 (CDT)

Well we can probably just leave the text totally customizable. Most print shops allow only upper case letters and numbers, no symbols. --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 11:04, 4 July 2007 (CDT)

How 'bout cafepress? --blendmaster 14:18, 6 July 2007 (CDT)

Cafe Press would work well for white and black shirts. We just need a good bluecloud themed SW logo (not just the text, but with clouds behind it). --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 12:01, 9 August 2007 (CDT)

I don't really care about any merchandising, but a paypal donate button seems easy enough to add to either the bottom, near the "Powered by MediaWiki" icon, or Wikipedia style, with a link in the left navigation. Is any progress being made on this? -- [[ blendmaster | talk ]] 14:47, 11 August 2007 (CDT)

Unresolved CI discussions

I'm going through the old CI archives looking for stuff that we didn't full complete but archived due to inactivity. I'll be bringing them up as I find them here. -- Prod (Talk) 14:40, 14 July 2007 (CDT)

Can you delete them once they've been resolved or are you going to wait for a full archive? --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 00:28, 19 July 2007 (CDT)

Category renaming

Only ones remaining from this are:

~~Category:Super Nintendo -> Category:SNES (Official name)~~
~~Category:Super Nintendo controller buttons -> Category:SNES controller buttons~~

Super NES and SNES are the official names if you visit the website. SNES is more common and matches the Category:NES name (showing that it's an extension of the NES). This change would take about 1 day with my bot. -- Prod (Talk) 14:40, 14 July 2007 (CDT)

Fine by me. --DrBob (Talk) 14:54, 14 July 2007 (CDT)

Yeah, go for it. --

Safety Skizzerz ^{Talk · Contribs · Spel Chek™ · VFG · RTFM} 18:03, 14 July 2007 (CDT)

Done the 2nd one. First one I'll wait till tomorrow to give other people a chance to reply (it would take longer to undo). -- Prod (Talk) 21:36, 14 July 2007 (CDT)

I say yes, change Super Nintendo to SNES. --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 23:51, 22 July 2007 (CDT)

Done. -- Prod (Talk) 23:07, 27 July 2007 (CDT)

Trademark/copyright

This was about having a short trademark/copyright notice at the bottom of all image pages. Not sure if this one was completed. -- Prod (Talk) 14:40, 14 July 2007 (CDT)

Looks like it's already been done. --DrBob (Talk) 14:54, 14 July 2007 (CDT)

I only see the GFDL message. Don't we need something like All trademarks are the property of their respective owners, or something similar? -- Prod (Talk) 21:39, 14 July 2007 (CDT)

Top of this section. --DrBob (Talk) 03:30, 15 July 2007 (CDT)

Where is that shown? ([[1]] links to it). -- Prod (Talk) 09:34, 15 July 2007 (CDT)

In BlueCloud, at the bottom right corner of every page is a link called "Disclaimers", which leads to it (it's right under the About StrategyWiki link). In MonoBook, it's located at the bottom center, also called "Disclaimers". --

Safety Skizzerz ^{Talk · Contribs · Spel Chek™ · VFG · RTFM} 10:18, 15 July 2007 (CDT)

Should there be a link to it in SW:Guide? Also on SW:Guide should we have a section for just SW related info? --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 12:09, 9 August 2007 (CDT)

Er, what? I don't think there's any need to link to it in the guide, and I've got no idea what you're on about with your second point. :-P --DrBob (Talk) 12:22, 9 August 2007 (CDT)

We don't have a page that lists all SW pages. I think, rather than throwing them onto the SW:Guide that we make Category:StrategyWiki. Why would we do this? To help locate things like disclaimers, SW:Mettings, projects, admins, etc. We don't have a single, easy to locate, portal. --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs)

Um... Special:Allpages anyone? Just choose what namespace you want. --

Safety Skizzerz ^{Talk · Contribs · Spel Chek™ · VFG · RTFM} 13:11, 9 August 2007 (CDT)

Hm, I didn't know that existed. Special All pages StrategyWiki: worked for me. But is that a good way for our community to look up SW pages? Seems a little... unorganized compared to a category. --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 13:16, 9 August 2007 (CDT)

Posters

Anyone else have some posters they'd like to share? Perhaps some kind of competition? -- Prod (Talk) 14:40, 14 July 2007 (CDT)

/ping echelon --DrBob (Talk) 14:54, 14 July 2007 (CDT)

How about setting up an "official" contest at StrategyWiki:Poster contest? --

Safety Skizzerz ^{Talk · Contribs · Spel Chek™ · VFG · RTFM} 18:03, 14 July 2007 (CDT)

I've kept one continually posted at the entrance of our campus' CS lab year-round, but it's not really noteworthy. It'd be cool to have a sweet graphical poster/ad that draws attention. echelon_talk 21:22, 14 July 2007 (CDT)

I know it isn't really widespread right now, but this image of QR code is a link to our site and might look "cutting edge" on a poster (or just confuse them all :P). -- Prod (Talk) 22:16, 14 July 2007 (CDT)

Very few phones have the software for QR codes in the US... :( echelon_talk 00:59, 15 July 2007 (CDT)

I'll see what I can come up with next week, but for now, Ech should take the bluecloud SW logo and extend the boundaries of it, then release the image. Also, isolate the text and release that by itself as well (as like .psd's and other file types). If you help spur the competition, more submissions will come! --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 12:24, 15 July 2007 (CDT)

We just got the old PSD, and I think Teddy has worked with it some. I'll ask him which version we should release. echelon_talk 16:29, 15 July 2007 (CDT)

I got one too--Image:SW Poster stumped.png. --

Safety Skizzerz ^{Talk · Contribs · Spel Chek™ · VFG · RTFM} 11:23, 16 July 2007 (CDT)

Competition has been spurred: [2]. --blendmaster 13:31, 17 July 2007 (CDT)

Nice. How about this? --

Safety Skizzerz ^{Talk · Contribs · Spel Chek™ · VFG · RTFM} 14:58, 17 July 2007 (CDT)

No... If I have to spend more than 5 seconds reading an advertisement, they don't get me. Blend's is most effective so far. I think we also need something along the line of Red vs. Blue. Procyon (Talk) 15:39, 17 July 2007 (CDT)

Here's my submission, based on Procyon's suggestion. Image:Prod StrategyWiki Poster.png -- Prod (Talk) 22:45, 17 July 2007 (CDT)

What do you mean something along the line of Red vs. Blue? I'm imagining a sitcom set in wikicode, where sysops battle for two contested page revisions; perhaps they make jokes about a certain user's lightish-red signature. But no matter. Concerning Prod's design: It's nice and simple, but something about that Microsoft(c) WordArt(TM) doesn't tickle my pickle. It's just so, well, PowerPoint. Those garish letters superimposed upon a low contrast background conjure memories - bad memories - of long hours wasted watching my fellow students' presentations fly, sparkle, roll, and explode onto one of those chintzy canned backgrounds, while they recite an equally entertaining harangue, consisting completely of the composition ( 4 bullets, no more than 6 words each ) on screen. --blendmaster 23:39, 17 July 2007 (CDT)

OK, my turn. These were some ideas that I was tossing around with Echelon. They're meant to be short, simple, and too the point. I present Mario, Street Fighter, and Sonic. Also, when I was a little kid, Atari ran advertisements like this one for Ms. Pac-Man, so I replicated it a little bit for StrategyWiki here. I would consider these by no means well done. They're just to communicate a point. Teddy could do a much better job with these than I could. Procyon (Talk) 16:34, 18 July 2007 (CDT)

This is Skizzerz's idea, and I think one of his best quite frankly. I did the execution of the idea, but I didn't use very good source materials. Anyway, Skizzerz, this is what you were thinking of, right? Procyon (Talk) 19:19, 18 July 2007 (CDT)

Nice. Blends in well too. *sigh* Why can't I make them like that? :P --

Safety Skizzerz ^{Talk · Contribs · Spel Chek™ · VFG · RTFM} 19:27, 18 July 2007 (CDT)

Can we also get some suggestions for black and white versions that don't cost a ton of ink. -- Prod (Talk) 20:27, 18 July 2007 (CDT)

I like Procyon's so far, but they need to mention StrategyWiki's actual URL (could we integrate the ".org" part into a version of that logo, somehow?), and as Prod says; they need to be slightly less colourful. To be printed cheaply, they need to mostly consist of two or three major colours. --DrBob (Talk) 01:25, 19 July 2007 (CDT)

Someone needs to make a head on (2d) logo for StrategyWiki. The 3d logo looks horrible on anything but the website header. Are those word balloons perhaps word spheres, and the letters extend inside of them? Also, a domain name extension definitely needs to be appended, lest consumers think we are a book, magazine, or perhaps some sort of custom Ouija board, designed to illuminate video game strategies.

I do, however, like that Triforce ad. If anyone knows their way around POVray of Blender3d, they could probably render a pretty nice looking Triforce, and superimpose it upon a white background with black text, thus creating a low cost as well as attractive poster. One thing though. No more Times New Roman, okay? --blendmaster 10:37, 19 July 2007 (CDT)

As I said, my work is strictly conceptual, and should in now way be used as a final product. I leave it to more skillful artists such as yourself or Teddy to make more professional looking versions of what I did. Procyon (Talk) 12:47, 19 July 2007 (CDT)

Here is a two color poster ( I do like that shade of blue ). However, I kinda borrowed-without-permission the robot model, so it's not final. The small text can be safely ignored as well. --blendmaster 13:37, 19 July 2007 (CDT)

What is it with that shade of blue? Is the gamma different on my monitor, because that is almost blinding me. :-\ However, I do like it, although the text could use some hyphens and correct capitalisation. --DrBob (Talk) 15:53, 20 July 2007 (CDT)

Here is my black and white poster submission (file no longer exists). Enjoy. Teddy 21:23, 19 July 2007 (CDT)

I don't think you need "StrategyWiki" twice at the top; the ".org" could just be below the logo (which looks nice, btw). Perhaps the text could mention we're not just plain-text, or that we're a wiki? And WTF is a "thwart", other than a verb?? --DrBob (Talk) 15:53, 20 July 2007 (CDT)

I think advertising that we're not plaintext is speaking to the wrong crowd. If these posters are meant to be posted in public places, why are we advertising the the GameFAQs crowd? There's a chance that many gamers don't even know what GameFAQs is--but that doesn't mean we don't want them to visit. I think the only thing we need to mention in our ads is that the purpose of the site is for videogame guides. echelon_talk 17:39, 20 July 2007 (CDT)

I must disagree. We're advertising to gamers (the only people who would want walkthroughs and stuff). Pretty much all gamers have heard of GameFAQs and similar sites, so we should (at least in passing, and probably not directly) differentiate ourselves from them. --DrBob (Talk) 18:33, 21 July 2007 (CDT)

I halfway agree with DrBob. Most gamers do know the GameFAQs brand, but no doubt some are still conned into buying printed strategy guides. "Free guides" is good marketing. Myself, I kind of like the "Wikipedia for game walkthroughs" angle. Although the main point is that we're editable by anyone, the comparison also suggests we have a damn lot of content. Not a bad suggestion, for sure. --blendmaster 11:52, 22 July 2007 (CDT)

I personally feel that it is best to have multiple posters with different "themes" anyway. We could have a "Wikipedia for game walkthroughs" theme, "death of plain text" theme, and maybe even a "be bold" theme. We don't necessarily have to stick to one thing only.--Duke Ruckley 10:34, 23 July 2007 (CDT)

This thread has gotten really long. Maybe we should create a StrategyWiki:Advertisements or StrategyWiki:Posters to have an organized method of distributing images without creating giant threads in the community portal? The talk page there would be a good place for discussion and seeing as it attracts mostly graphic artists and administrators... Yeah. --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 19:05, 17 August 2007 (CDT)

Great idea. Go right ahead. :-) --DrBob

03:37, 18 August 2007 (CDT)

Zelda Partnership

This was a thought to have a partnership with ZeldaWiki. Did this ever get finished? -- Prod (Talk) 14:40, 14 July 2007 (CDT)

They seem to be linking to us already (see infobox), so I think we should get some sort of partnership going (unless this has already been done?). --DrBob (Talk) 14:54, 14 July 2007 (CDT)

There seems to be no record of such a partnership anywhere on the site, plus it was added by an anon (125.238.138.145) on April 8th, and then slightly modified by another anon (24.57.132.221) on April 21st. No registered users took part in the modification of their game template. However, a sysop (Adamcox82) made a comment on the talk page for The Legend of Zelda NES, and is seemingly in favor of linking to us. Therefore, it seems no official partnership was ever discussed. --

Safety Skizzerz ^{Talk · Contribs · Spel Chek™ · VFG · RTFM} 18:03, 14 July 2007 (CDT)

I'm going to solidify this, Bulbapedia-style. It'll be worthwhile for us in that I think I can get us some better recognition there (and extra Google credit), plus it will help them out with incoming traffic too. echelon_talk 21:31, 14 July 2007 (CDT)

Yeah, and I always felt a Triforce external link icon would be really cool, too... I'll work on one once I find out how big it should be. --

Safety Skizzerz ^{Talk · Contribs · Spel Chek™ · VFG · RTFM} 10:24, 15 July 2007 (CDT)

I just talked with Jason (their webmaster) about this deal, and he seems enthusiastic about it. I think we may eventually be able to do more cross-promotion for each other than what has come of the Bulbapedia deal. As you can already see, I've uploaded the logo he gave me (sorry Ryan--I guess you could still make one though) and added it to the css. I've tested it out in a couple of places, usually where a term appears first or a link might be most useful. What do you guys think? We might also be able to make something that functions in a way similar to Template:Wikipedia in some instances. I don't know if that would be overkill though. Any thoughts? echelon_talk 23:44, 15 July 2007 (CDT)

It might be good to include on the front page, but it depends how many links that we get in return. If all they are doing is linking to us in their infobox, then the inlines are good enough. If they do more, then the box on the front page might be in order. Oh, and how's File:Zwlink2.png as the link image? It's 15x15 so it won't be cropped when it's used as the link image (like the current 16x16 one is). --

Safety Skizzerz ^{Talk · Contribs · Spel Chek™ · VFG · RTFM} 08:40, 16 July 2007 (CDT)

That blends in with the background a little too much, I think. --DrBob (Talk) 13:49, 16 July 2007 (CDT)

Dan added some interwiki links ZW: and ZeldaWiki: to make linking easier. :) -- Prod (Talk) 20:27, 16 July 2007 (CDT)

Shortcuts

I don't think this was solved. The reason for it has something to do with adding items to the toolbox instead of tabs. Not sure how difficult it is to solve. -- Prod (Talk) 20:02, 14 July 2007 (CDT)

DB said he'd take care of it. --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 13:38, 24 August 2007 (CDT)

Sorted. I think the only two I could actually add were edit and watch/unwatch, which are now "alt+e" and "alt+w", respectively. --DrBob

07:53, 28 August 2007 (CDT)

Going mainstream

Bringing this up again since we've finished more steps.

(done) ~~Set up the website, get the admins, basic stuff.~~
(done) ~~Tell people how to use the site. Essentially, have enough documentation so that within 10 minutes they can start editing, but easily find more in depth info after (or at least some direction).~~
(done) Set up a good amount of background guides which follow the policy and are good examples of how to continue other guides. Having one main example is good, but we should probably have a few that show different aspects of what can be done.
Plan a specific opening date. Get lots of advertisement (probably should have a page with suggestions for this). Plan some kind of event for that day (abxy should be able to help with that).
(done, good number of sysops) ~~Make sure there are proper controls so that if we do get a lot of people, there are ways for us to make sure things stay under control.~~
By getting lots of people around the same time, it will show how active the site is, and it will help the any ratings that require a huge jump to become notable (ie. Alexa.com). To this effect, I might suggest allowing anonymous edits for a few weeks around that time, depending on how bad vandalism is. Once people are hooked they may be more willing to register (just my opinion).
Profit!!! ~~A new layout would be great to release at this time. Something to show that the site is going from "Beta" to "Official".~~

-- Prod (Talk) 20:14, 14 July 2007 (CDT)

So all we need is 1) an anniversary date (you can't re-open a community!) 2) a new theme and 3) advertising! --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 12:13, 9 August 2007 (CDT)

I'm not so sure we need a new theme, actually. I quite like BlueCloud, and while it has a few bumps (which can and should be fixed), I see no need to replace it. --DrBob (Talk) 12:24, 9 August 2007 (CDT)

Yeah that was Prod's idea, and I'm not for replacing but having another awesome one just like BC as an alternate (perhaps a dark themed one? Our current ones are all white and a lot of people prefer dark because it's easier on the eyes). --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 12:53, 9 August 2007 (CDT)

This is a fairly old thread, and back when I started it, we were considering a new theme. Now I think we just need a good "official" date (some kind of event) and advertise that event. -- Prod (Talk) 19:01, 18 August 2007 (CDT)

We can discuss this at the meeting tommorow, after prime topics of course. --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 13:46, 24 August 2007 (CDT)

Endorse Firefox?

Not really a topic about endorsing firefox, but what issues are there with the other browsers? -- Prod (Talk) 20:20, 14 July 2007 (CDT)

Lots. :-P We should try to support them all, but I certainly wouldn't be against putting a Firefox link in the footer. --DrBob (Talk) 03:39, 15 July 2007 (CDT)

The main one that we HAVE to keep standardized is the div widths. IE cannot have the widths add up to 100% while other browsers can, thus when we have 3 columns, it's 33% each. Now that I think about it, I'm not sure about using 25%, I thought it worked at one point, but if someone can find me a ToC with four columns, please post a link so I can test. --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 12:28, 15 July 2007 (CDT)

Pokémon Gold and Silver/Table of Contents--Rocky

^{(Talk - Contributions)} 12:51, 15 July 2007 (CDT)

As I've said before, IE should be able to have the widths add up to 100%, but only if there are no paddings and margins interfering, because its box model is b0rked. --DrBob (Talk) 17:16, 15 July 2007 (CDT)

Regular "staff" (IRC) meetings

Topic says it all. Plenty of discussion, no actual result. -- Prod (Talk) 20:23, 14 July 2007 (CDT)

Everyone needs to get in touch with me ASAP. I have something to discuss concerning our meetings. echelon_talk 00:58, 15 July 2007 (CDT)

I should clairfy. Please email me or get in touch via AIM when you can. It's to discuss a meeting we'll be holding this upcoming Saturday at noon EST, and I want to give each of you various topics to consider before then. echelon_talk 16:27, 15 July 2007 (CDT)

So, seemingly the meeting occured. What the rest of us mere mortals want to know, what were the resolutions, and are there any logs of the discussions? I think I stumbled upon the log a while ago, but the computer crashed before it could fully load.--Froglet 19:55, 4 August 2007 (CDT)

The logs were meant to be put on the staff lounge talk but they're not there, any1 help as i had to leave and came in halfway through?--Rocky

^{(Talk - Contributions)} 03:35, 5 August 2007 (CDT)

The logs can be found at StrategyWiki:Meetings. -- Prod (Talk) 09:00, 5 August 2007 (CDT)

StrategyWiki Forum

Once again, topic says it all, lots of discussion, no result. -- Prod (Talk) 21:44, 14 July 2007 (CDT)

We're going to do this, but we have to discuss the short-term implementation details. I do not want a hack. echelon_talk 00:57, 15 July 2007 (CDT)

The phpBB forums aren't really a hack, but they do have limitations. A nice thing about them though is that you can put in an extension that lets you share the user database with the wiki. --

Safety Skizzerz ^{Talk · Contribs · Spel Chek™ · VFG · RTFM} 11:19, 15 July 2007 (CDT)

phpBB is spaghetti code, and I refuse to use any of their software. :-/ We'll find another option. We may have to code our own. Anyway, this will be discussed I suspect this upcoming Saturday at noon EST in an IRC #strategywiki meeting we're holding.echelon_talk 16:25, 15 July 2007 (CDT)

"Getting started" vs. "How to play"

From what I can tell, we ended with "Getting Started", but I still see some with "Basics", "How to play" and other inconsistencies. I have a feeling there are too many opinions for this to reach a proper consensus, but lets try again. -- Prod (Talk) 21:56, 14 July 2007 (CDT)

I always liked Getting Started best because it denotes information just for noobs and such, it's like the stuff you'd find in the game manual and additional game features explained (that's for the getting started page itself). Then the sub pages under that ToC heading all make sense because it's like basic information. I just don't like using the term basic and Getting Started is like BAM hey noobs, read this. How to Play is too specific to like, doing things. Getting Started gives us a general term that lets us explain things beyond playing the game (i.e. controls/mechanics) like characters, background info, etc. --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 12:36, 15 July 2007 (CDT)

^-- Agreed. --DrBob (Talk) 17:18, 15 July 2007 (CDT)

So, are we agreeing to deprecate "How to play" and "Basics"? -- Prod (Talk) 19:03, 18 August 2007 (CDT)

Except in exceptional circumstances (like arcade game guides, where 'How to play' is really all that needs to be covered), I'd say deprecate them. --

Safety Skizzerz ^{Talk · Contribs · Spel Chek™ · VFG · RTFM} 19:16, 18 August 2007 (CDT)

OK then. Unless there's any major reason not to I'll use AWB to hunt for /Basics pages to turn into /Getting Started. Garrett^Talk 02:09, 19 August 2007 (CDT)

Games that begin with "The"

Only thing decided was that it doesn't belong on the ToC page. Should we still add it to the main game page? Anyone know anything about the ability to have it named with the "The" at the end in the category lists? The only possible way I can think of right now (which I am highly against) is renaming those games with the "The" on the end. -- Prod (Talk) 21:59, 14 July 2007 (CDT)

I think it's best just to leave it as is now. Namely, on categorization pages the game should be placed in the proper section (i.e. The Legend of Zelda categorized under "L"). When linking the game, however, the "The" should remain in front. You'll note this is how wikipedia does it (game, category).--Duke Ruckley 07:59, 18 August 2007 (CDT)

Priorities - What types are there?

For the TODO lists, we need to specify a priority for them. But shouldn't TODO lists on game guides all be the same (i.e. priority=Additions or something along those lines)? The only priority type I know of is personal - for user pages. We need a list of types and we need to put it on the TODO template page for easy reference. --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 09:58, 23 July 2007 (CDT)

You may want to check out {{Todo priority}}. --

Safety Skizzerz ^{Talk · Contribs · Spel Chek™ · VFG · RTFM} 10:35, 23 July 2007 (CDT)

So I moved the info out where people will actually see it. The question now is how do we want the numbers to work and in what order? Does priority 1 mean "These tasks are our number one priority?" Or does it mean "These tasks are of the lowest priority?" How do we classify them? 1-9? We have a 1-4 scale for completion, should it mimic that instead? --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 00:46, 25 July 2007 (CDT)

I don't think priorities are required for the todo's themselves. Each todo is for the game itself and there is no way to say one game is more important than another. I would say "priority" should be changed to "category" (ie. personal, project, etc.). -- Prod (Talk) 19:43, 25 July 2007 (CDT)

Yeah I don't like number rankings because they don't mean anything. But my suggestions are like Prod's, make them just the same as the type of article they accompany:

Personal -> User/User page.
Project -> Project portal (cleanup, collaboration, etc.).
Game -> Game article.
Category -> Category pages.

--Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 14:16, 28 July 2007 (CDT)

Wiki Merger

I've recently stumbled across a Gears of War wiki and discovered that they had a complete walkthrough, among other things, for Gears of War. Since they are GFDL, we could technically just transwiki everything over, but 92 articles and 51 images is a lot. Therefore, I am proposing that we offer to them that they merge their content into our site. Before I bring it up with their community/webmaster, however, I would like to hear what you all think about this. --Safety Skizzerz ^{Talk · Contribs · Spel Chek™ · VFG · RTFM} 18:23, 24 July 2007 (CDT)

I'm guessing they'd say no, but please try anyways. --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 00:30, 25 July 2007 (CDT)

Don't propose that we merge their content; propose that we merge their community (+content) in. :-) --DrBob (Talk) 12:51, 25 July 2007 (CDT)

Looks like their site has been getting spammed to hell at least for the last week. Has any progress been made? -- Prod (Talk) 19:07, 18 August 2007 (CDT)

nope. --

Safety Skizzerz ^{Talk · Contribs · Spel Chek™ · VFG · RTFM} 19:15, 18 August 2007 (CDT)

The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past

For roughly the past month, I have been working tirelessly to complete this guide, and I think that tonight, I can finally say that it's done. The way I ended up working on it was quite funny actually. I was sitting the IRC channel, and I sarcastically asked what I should work on next (because I always have a laundry list of games I want to get to,) when Garrett suggest A Link to the Past, a guide that he started a while back. At first I thought the idea was funny, but since it's one of my all time favorite SNES games, I figured why not, so I got started on it. I would say that what you see tonight is the final result.

Unlike with Pokémon Red and Blue, I wasn't just shooting to construct a model guide, but rather to create the first guide that might be eligible for the distinction of being at level 5 completion. Unlike a level 4 completion which is pretty thorough, but not without some small room for improvement, a level 5 guide is one that you could not possibly add something to it and greatly enhance it. As we discussed some time ago, level 5 guides need to be voted upon. I don't know if everyone will agree that LttP is at level 5 yet. People may feel that it still needs work. It definitely needs proof reading. Since I've been using Firefox 2.0 my spelling error rate has dropped substantially (thank you Mozilla), but what it doesn't catch is when I mistype one word with another correctly spelled word (such as if I meant "through" but I typed "though"). So I really need people to analyze the writing and look for obvious mistakes.

Anyway, the point of this long winded message is to kick off the level 5 voting procedure. I suppose we could copy the format used for sys-op nominations. I just fear that someone like DrBob or Skizzerz is better suited to take care of that than I. But I'd also like to get people's opinions on the matter as well. Thanks very much to the usual suspects for their tremendous support. Procyon (Talk) 20:12, 8 August 2007 (CDT)

Great! I've just proof-read all the pages in the first column of the TOC, and apart from a few mis-apostrophications, things look good. I've changed the layout on the enemy pages slightly (so that the TOC is less intrusive), and you should probably look at the Items page, as it says it's a WIP, and the description for the "Magic Hammer" looks wrong to me. Overall, the guide looks great.

As far as level 5 voting goes, I think Garrett did some stuff towards this before, didn't he? Something involving templates and golden stars in the top-right, or am I mistaken? --DrBob (Talk) 08:36, 9 August 2007 (CDT)

How about an 0005.svg? -- [[ blendmaster | talk ]] 13:34, 9 August 2007 (CDT)

That's cool. I think it'll work. echelon_talk 18:44, 9 August 2007 (CDT)

Oh yes, and I'm against copying the format used for the sysop nominations, as it seems far too complex and prone to being mucked up. We should be able to come up with something simpler. Keeping things all on one page would be nice. --DrBob (Talk) 08:37, 9 August 2007 (CDT)

Check out StrategyWiki:Featured guides/Current requests and voice your opinion about The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past. --

Safety Skizzerz ^{Talk · Contribs · Spel Chek™ · VFG · RTFM} 13:19, 9 August 2007 (CDT)

I've just finished proofreading the pages in the second column of the ToC. Still looking good! :-) --DrBob (Talk) 14:38, 12 August 2007 (CDT)

I can't thank you enough for you efforts DrBob. There's still the matter of the GBA sections that needs to be resolved. I'll take my next point to the featured guides request page. Procyon (Talk) 15:17, 12 August 2007 (CDT)

Aaaand the third column's now proofread. :-) --DrBob (Talk) 10:12, 15 August 2007 (CDT)

The whole guide has now been proofread, and apart from a few pages which need attention (and are linked on Procyon's talk page), it looks great. --DrBob

04:39, 19 August 2007 (CDT)

On a side note, I've been itching to play this game again (I never actually beat it!) and so I'm going to the guide word for word with it. I've corrected the very minor mistakes I found in the first couple pages (like spelling and grammar) and will continue to do so as I play through the rest of the game.--Duke Ruckley 07:39, 19 August 2007 (CDT) I don't think I'll need to take any screenshots, but if there are any in particular you guys would like to have, leave a message on my talk page.--Duke Ruckley 07:39, 19 August 2007 (CDT)

Nominee template

Should we be putting {{VFG/Nominee}} on the main or talk pages? -- Prod (Talk) 22:20, 17 August 2007 (CDT)

On the main page, I'd say. Garrett^Talk 22:44, 17 August 2007 (CDT)

The reason I ask is because this is "editorial" content, not actual guide content. It's a big annoying block that just gets in the way of the guide itself. -- Prod (Talk) 19:09, 18 August 2007 (CDT)

so is {{stub}}, it's mainly for editors and the occasional reader that cares, as with Nominee. Nobody here really checks talk pages unless they patrol/troll recentchanges. --

Safety Skizzerz ^{Talk · Contribs · Spel Chek™ · VFG · RTFM}

{{stub}} is a noted exception, that is barely hanging on. This needs to be decided on a case by case basis. -- Prod (Talk) 19:52, 18 August 2007 (CDT)

Archiving

I've just archived a huge amount of stuff from this page, but I've left a number of discussions behind, since they don't seem to have been resolved. Could people take a look at them, and hopefully we can resolve and archive them too? --DrBob (Talk) 09:51, 9 August 2007 (CDT)

Our latest threads are massive. I think we need to clean up some of the finished topics now. First off, how do we archive these? Just delete them? Second, here's a list of the current threads that are finished (double check please):

Feature Guides Template (It's been created)
WikiProject (Outcome was No, however see project notice under Posters section)
How About a Top Ten (It has been applied)
Category Renaming

Um I'll add more later... when I get back from work. --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 19:07, 17 August 2007 (CDT)

To archive threads, copy the entire thread to the archive page for the month in which the thread was first created (preferably putting it in the right place chronologically in the archive page). I don't want to archive the "unresolved CI discussions" sections until all of them are resolved. I think we're almost there, but not quite, so could people please try and resolve them? I've archived the other threads you pointed out, apart from "How about a top ten", since there's still the possibility of discussion about server load. --DrBob

04:07, 18 August 2007 (CDT)

For the Unresolved CI issues, I was thinking we could archive them with the original discussions as each subpart was solved. -- Prod (Talk) 17:52, 18 August 2007 (CDT)

That's possible. --DrBob

01:53, 19 August 2007 (CDT)

Permanent system browser

Don't you think that something as important as a system browser should be on every page, not just the main page? All the major gaming sites have their system list in the navigation at the top of the page. A lot of them even have navigation links at the bottom of every page. I think it would be good to have even just a text menu below the left navigation linking to all the systems and possibly the genres. -- [[ blendmaster | talk ]] 20:42, 10 August 2007 (CDT)

There's not enough room at the top; but if we could add it to the very bottom (like where disclaimers and the licenses are shown) I think it would work pretty well. --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 23:30, 10 August 2007 (CDT)

You'd have to hack MediaWiki to get stuff down there, which is not going to happen. If they want to go to the system browser, they can simply click on the "Main Page" link and head from there. --

Safety Skizzerz ^{Talk · Contribs · Spel Chek™ · VFG · RTFM} 10:07, 11 August 2007 (CDT)

But that's an extra click. I doubt that many users click on the links at the bottom of Gamespot and GameFAQs, but they're still there. Even if it's hard to put links at the bottom of the page, it should be easy to put more links in the left navigation. Right now, they're all pretty meta. They're what Wikipedia puts in the "toolbox" and "interaction" section. We need some more links to actual content. -- [[ blendmaster | talk ]] 14:02, 11 August 2007 (CDT)

Sounds good to me. On the left nav I would only like to see some visible break between the tool links we have now and what we might add. We need to keep things very simple when we do this, so what do we want? I propose the section (assuming we are only adding one) might have a title, perhaps "Guides" and then links to Systems, Genres, etc. --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 22:34, 12 August 2007 (CDT)

When "one game, one guide" fails...

This topic has come up a lot recently in light of attempting to promote The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past to feature guide status. A permanent policy must be decided upon before the status of that guide can be determined.

Obviously, the "one game, one guide" philosophy is a desirable one. Very few games have more than one version, and we distinguish ourselves from other game info sites by presenting readers with one obvious choice instead of a multitude of gambles. However, when we encounter games that have more than one version, we run into quite a little conundrum. We have plenty of examples of this situation on our site already, and no consistent way of handling it:

Super Mario 64 / Super Mario 64 DS: Clear redundancy of information, and no central organization between the two guides.
Street Fighter II series: All pages share identical Table of contents that interlink all of the main pages into one guide.
Super Mario Bros. / Super Mario All-Stars / Vs. Super Mario Bros.: We have a main guide, a portal page, and a supplimental information page.
Pokémon Red and Blue / Pokémon Yellow: One is the main guide with an inclusive walkthrough, the other contains exclusive version information with a transcluded Table of Contents from the main guide.
The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past / The Legend of Zelda: Four Swords: The very guide in question, we have a SNES walkthrough with GBA appendices.

So far, I have been in favor of the Pokemon guide's approach, but I have a feeling that I'm in the minority on this. If I were to guess Echelon and Prod's position on the matter, I think they would prefer the Zelda approach. I think we can all agree that the Super Mario 64 approach is terrible. The only reason the Street Fighter II approach works is because they are all "onepage" guides. As for Super Mario Bros., well, that's just a headache that can be solved if we adopt a better official policy (personally, I consider Super Mario All-Stars a compilation title, and is subject to compilation policies.) I will start this debate off with my opinions. Procyon (Talk) 10:16, 13 August 2007 (CDT)

I personally prefer the Pokemon guide approach for the following reason: I like the segregation of version information. If I'm looking at Pokemon Red/Blue, I don't want to know anything specific about Yellow that does not pertain to Red and Blue. If I'm looking at Yellow, I only wish to know what's different about Yellow. The introduction page should educate the reader that Yellow is a tweaked version of Red and Blue, and that the walkthrough information of Red and Blue pertains to Yellow. The Yellow guide is simply where you can locate specific Yellow information. Therefore, I propose that I would like to see GBA information about A Link to the Past excluded from the SNES version of guide, and only specifically included in the GBA version of the guide. Now, having said that, I'm already prepared to accept the majority opinion of the community, which I believe will be along the lines of the inclusion (that is, one Link to the Past guide that includes all version variations.) However, should that be the case, problems that currently exist with all of the other guides that I mention above need to be addressed, especially the Super Mario 64 guides. Procyon (Talk) 10:16, 13 August 2007 (CDT)

I must admit that I'm a bit crazier than even you Procyon. While I'm also in favor of exclusion, I would also create a modified walkthrough that pertains to the other guide instead of making them go back to the original version (So Four Swords would have its own distinct walkthrough, much like the GameCube version in Twilight Princess has its own distinct walkthrough). Of course, you don't have to type out the walkthrough again, a simple {{:The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past/Some page}} would suffice if there are no differences in the walkthrough itself, but I'd say give the other version a full walkthrough as well (of course, that also means that I'm under the opinion that Red and Blue should be split up, but I'm probably outvoted on that one). --

Safety Skizzerz ^{Talk · Contribs · Spel Chek™ · VFG · RTFM} 10:59, 13 August 2007 (CDT)

I realize that it's not uncommon for use to have some issue remain unresolved, but I really don't think that this should be one of them. Please try and add your input this to conversation if you haven't already. Thanks. Procyon (Talk) 19:53, 14 August 2007 (CDT)

Without going through this point by point, we should be minimizing redundancy, while making it as easy as possible to edit. This involves minimizing the number of noincludess. We have two main "issues", many names to one game, and one game under many names. We need to go through these under as many variations as possible. Please add whatever you can think of. -- Prod (Talk) 20:36, 14 August 2007 (CDT)
Many names, one game

Translated names: One guide with from alternate names
Releases on different consoles with different names/rereleases (No additional content): Main page for each game with transcluded toc or redirect? (Outstanding)

One name, many games

Concurrent release on many consoles with different gameplay: Most popular game goes at that name, with disambig link to less common games.
Rereleases (new content - Super Mario 64/Super Mario 64 DS): Common guide under original name, significant new content gets new pages in new guide space, minor changes to existing content goes in sidebars to original guide.
Expansion packs (Diablo II/Diablo II: Lord of Destruction): Similar to the way rereleases are handled, the expansion transcludes the original game, with all new content under the expansions name.

For "many names, one game" I think we should just use redirects (categorised as determined in the stage 4 discussion below), and have a sentence or two about each re-release/different name on the guide's main page. This minimises noinclude/transclusion mess, and a couple of sentences on each re-release isn't much to put on a guide's main page, especially as it's related information. For "one name, many guides", I think it'd have to be determined by just how varied the gameplay is. Depending on the level of variation, we could have different guide layouts (in order from minor to major variation):

One guide with inline/sidebarred information about variations
One guide with above and extra pages about variations
Two guides with the release one's pages transcluding the main one's, and adding stuff
Two separate guides

I think this would have to be determined on a case-by-case basis. --DrBob (Talk) 02:51, 15 August 2007 (CDT)

(Edit conflicted, so I haven't read Prod's edit yet) Just to clarify, The Legend of Zelda: Four Swords is specifically about the multiplayer game bundled with ALttP, not about the GBA cartridge as a whole (which is officially called The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past & Four Swords, but that's another story). Since it's arguably a separate game, the only GBA-specific things needing coverage are the Riddle Quest (full text done, but maybe needs more screenshots), the Palace of the Four Sword (which needs more of, well, everything), and Unlockables (which probably only needs the two remaining screenshots, which I probably already have somewhere). Once the Palace is done that's probably enough to be featured as the Riddle Quest doesn't really need illustrations and the Unlockables are explained within the appropriate walkthroughs. Garrett^Talk 20:45, 14 August 2007 (CDT)

With very specific regard to LttP, I have been able to access the Palace of the Four Swords. I will be able to provide a walkthrough and screenshots, and if it doesn't kill me too much, a map. Procyon (Talk) 21:57, 14 August 2007 (CDT)

Visual Boy Advance has a map viewer, but because it's reading it straight from the tile cache the offscreen area is partly jumbled and isn't as accurate as what you'd get from Hyrule Magic. Garrett^Talk 22:56, 14 August 2007 (CDT)

The problem is that the two have differences. There is one: in the village of the outcastas, the Item shop sells bees and faries and has a golden bee on display, if you catch a golden bee (not going to explain here) then you can buy that as well, from what I can tell, that isn't mentioned.--Rocky

^{(Talk - Contributions)} 15:39, 15 August 2007 (CDT)

[[The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past/Version Differences#Miscellaneous Changes|Yes it has]], although it could be added to the Village of Outcasts page too, just to be thorough. Procyon (Talk) 15:47, 15 August 2007 (CDT)

So have we decided to add the GBA bits in the lttp walkthrough or what?--Rocky

^{(Talk - Contributions)} 05:04, 17 August 2007 (CDT)

Technically, nothing has been decided. I just put the GBA stuff in there because it was holding up the feature guide promotion. It could still be moved out if we decided upon an official policy. This matter is spilling over into other titles. I tried to come up with a good way to deal with the Super Mario Bros. 1 guide and its transclusion in Super Mario Bros. Deluxe, but I fear the cure may be worse than the problem. The work that Garrett had to do to overcome the change in guides from inside page links is rather unfortunate. The only way to get around that, would be to force SMB, SMB DX, and SMB2j to all share a common TOC, and I don't know if that's much better. Procyon (Talk) 09:21, 17 August 2007 (CDT)

Alright its time to ask ourselves, "what's wrong with having a full guide, perhaps partly duplicated, for every game and game version?" I say, why not? Why not just have a duplicated, specific version guide for each console? GBA users will be able to add very small details, if they exist (glitches, sprite positions/behaviors, etc.) where SNES players wouldn't need such info... etc. I say we make a policy where we treat every game (each console version counts as a different game) as its own entity. This way we we'll have isolated versions, we won't have to even think about these merging/minor console version additions and I think that players that use the different versions will find it easier to collaborate with players of the same version... Ya know, GBA groups vs SNES, etc. --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 18:54, 17 August 2007 (CDT)

No! GameFAQs does it this way and it is fatally flawed. Do a search there for Golden Axe or whatever—while the gameplay of all its versions is pretty much identical, because authors have to specifically assign their guides to systems only half of the versions have FAQ pages, and there's even variation within these entries. The vast majority of games are visually and functionally comparable (if not identical) across all platforms, especially with emulation-based implementations like the Wii Virtual Console. The biggest problem with individual versions is if someone were to make some significant improvements to one particular version, those wouldn't carry across to the other versions even if the same pictures/information could also apply to that version. Garrett^Talk 20:24, 17 August 2007 (CDT)

For Super Mario Bros. Deluxe it's probably easier to treat those sections of it the same as compilations—linking to them rather than transcluding copies. This is what I've done for Gauntlet IV and the like and I think it works fine. Garrett^Talk 20:24, 17 August 2007 (CDT)

After living with, and thinking about this problem for quite a while now, I've come to the conclusion that Prod and Echelon were right all along. Games that contain roughly 90% of the same content should be "bundled" together. So, putting the Palace of the Four Swords, and the Riddle Quest from the GBA in the Link to the Past Walkthrough was the right thing to do. I will further argue my suggestion that SMB, SMB2j, and SMB DX all share an identical TOC. Yes, SMB and SMB2j are entirely different games, but their gameplay is so functionally identical, with a few new features and changes in SMB2j, that it simply makes sense to unite them. NMH, redundancy is extremely bad for two specific reasons: 1) it wastes space. Now, you could argue that we have plenty of space to waste, so the other point is 2) if you create multiple copies of text, and someone wants to edit one version, it is unlikely that they will do the detective work to update every version of that text, leading to a lot of out of sync versions. I will see arrange the SMB games the way I mentioned above, and we'll see how we like it. Garrett, thanks for the effort you made to fix the problems with the SMB1 Walkthrough, but I'm going to roll the pages back to the version before I added <noinclude>s. I hope you don't mind. Procyon (Talk) 21:10, 17 August 2007 (CDT)

Point taken and agreed. Can we make this a policy? --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 21:37, 17 August 2007 (CDT)

Yeah, I've been reading through this and I agree that games with enough similar content should be together. --Antaios 23:31, 17 August 2007 (CDT)

Completion Stage Four

Is there a reason the redirect Math has Category:Guides at completion stage 4 on it, when the actual guide Basic Math also has it? It adds two games to the completed games list when in reality it's only one... Think we should fix this?--Duke Ruckley 21:13, 13 August 2007 (CDT)

Probably... as you said, it adds two games to the list, and so it needs to be fixed. Baejung92 21:25, 13 August 2007 (CDT)

Let the record show that I was against this from the beginning, but I was soundly overruled. Garrett felt that if one game's guide was complete, and that game was known by a different name, then technically there are two games with complete guides, even though the count only references how many guides are complete, not how many games the guide refers to. I went along with it for a little while, but lately I've just stopped cuz it got silly. The problem is, if you undo it now, we will likely "deflate" to under 200 level4 guides. Maybe not, I'm not sure. Procyon (Talk) 21:56, 13 August 2007 (CDT)

We aren't stat whores. I think it's absurd that you'd count it as two guides. I have multiple names but I'm the same, one, person. --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 22:33, 13 August 2007 (CDT)

My reasoning behind this was that, otherwise, only the base name would feature in the completion category, meaning anyone who knew it only or primarily by another name would not find it there. The fact that this inflates the category is unfortunate. A similar argument could be made for the dozen or more versions of Street Fighter II, which are really just the same game with a few tweaks yet because of the design of {{Header Nav}} each has its own completion state. Garrett^Talk 01:10, 14 August 2007 (CDT)

Well we can't have the stat on the main page reflect "completed guides" then can we? It would have to be manually tallied from now on. I understand why you did it Garrett, but the system isn't that good yet. --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 01:57, 14 August 2007 (CDT)

I unfortunately will have to call you crazy, Notmyhandle. Manually counting will be impossible at best. I also understand why Garrett is doing it, and the inflated count is an (unfortunate?) consequence. Anyway, it probably will drop to under 200, which simply cannot happen (as we have some blogs - namely digg - that have stories of us reaching 200 completed guides). Of course, as I said elsewhere, I'd be for actually replicating the guide on that page instead of just making it a redirect (but I'll be sorely outvoted, plus it would be bad SEO according to Echelon). --

Safety Skizzerz ^{Talk · Contribs · Spel Chek™ · VFG · RTFM} 08:46, 14 August 2007 (CDT)

I must have missed this discussion back when it happened. I can see the reasoning for it, but I think it would have been better left to just redirect without adding the categories. I can understand it for example with Pokemon Red and Blue. If we had two separate guides (each with the same content, but on different guide pages) it would make sense. But in this case, if it is the exact same game under a different, there is no point in calling it two games that have completed guides.

If the reasoning behind it is to make it easier for someone to find the game by a different name under the completed guide list, I have this to say. Most people are not going to be searching for a specific guide under that category. If someone wants to find a guide for a specific game, they will most likely search for it or browse first through systems or genres. I'm okay with putting system, genre, date, and publisher categories on a redirect page in this case. But I think that the guide completion category should be reserved for the completed page itself.--Duke Ruckley 09:17, 14 August 2007 (CDT)

I hate to say it, but I completely agree with Duke on this matter. I can't imagine that anyone will ever search for a title by using one of the completion categories. I would personally prefer to see that number accurately reflect the number of actual guides completed than the number of games that the guides pertain to. I was considering a correctional policy where from this point forward, every time a guide reaches level 4 completion, a redirected guide gets removed. That way, we neither inflate or deflate the number of completed guides until the situation has corrected itself. Dunno if people prefer this or not. By my count, there are 44 extraneous guides on that page. Procyon (Talk) 11:22, 14 August 2007 (CDT)

I agree with Procyon that we should follow the correctional route. --

Safety Skizzerz ^{Talk · Contribs · Spel Chek™ · VFG · RTFM} 12:24, 14 August 2007 (CDT)

Header Navs on user subpages

Yeah, I agree but can we also add about not having a all game nav on any user subpage even if it's as a test.--Rocky

^{(Talk - Contributions)} 11:27, 14 August 2007 (CDT)

Thank you "way out of left field" Rocky o_O; Yes, we can agree on that, but couldn't you start a new topic for this? Procyon (Talk) 12:21, 14 August 2007 (CDT)

User:????????

I welcomed this user and now am not sure what to do, I can edit the talk page by using this link I've asked them to them to change their name to something more suitable but I don't think they'll be able to see the page or edit it. Can anyone suggest anything?? The only way I can think about getting the message across would be a change to their css or JS file, a rename or a block--Rocky ^{(Talk - Contributions)} 04:35, 14 August 2007 (CDT)

Block him infinitely, and leave a kind message on his talk page explaining why. Accounts with names like that are a right PITA to patrol, and I don't want to risk any vandalism from his account. --DrBob (Talk) 05:57, 14 August 2007 (CDT)

The thing is because of his name, he can't see his talk page, it gives a bad title error.--Rocky

^{(Talk - Contributions)} 06:58, 14 August 2007 (CDT)

We could put an explanation in the block's "reason" box; he should get told that when MediaWiki tells him he's been banned. --DrBob (Talk) 07:01, 14 August 2007 (CDT)

I'm almost wary of banning him, mystery??? always turned to mystery when you tried to talk to him so I'm a bit worried what a ban would do with this glitch.--Rocky

^{(Talk - Contributions)} 07:05, 14 August 2007 (CDT)

and clicking block leads to a blank form, it's a bit disconcerting.--Rocky

^{(Talk - Contributions)} 07:07, 14 August 2007 (CDT)

Is there a way to force users to create usernames without ?'s in them? Maybe some kind of hack that recognizes there is an illegal character in the name and gives the new user an error, telling them to change it?--Duke Ruckley 08:26, 14 August 2007 (CDT)

Unfortunately, that's the problem. It isn't an illegal character and there is no way to make it one (as ? is needed to start query strings). I'm proposing that we define a policy, outline it on the signup page, and instaban+polite message on the talk page for anyone that broke the policy and picked a bad name. Also, I've managed to successfully block ???????? after much trouble (had to view the page source so I could figure out what the IP box was. Turned out it was wpBlockAddress, so I had to go to http://strategywiki.org/wiki/Special:Blockip?wpBlockAddress=%3F%3F%3F%3F%3F%3F%3F%3F in order to make the block). External links don't show up as such in Recent Changes and the block log, but they are parsed correctly in the blocked box. --

Safety Skizzerz ^{Talk · Contribs · Spel Chek™ · VFG · RTFM} 08:41, 14 August 2007 (CDT)

I think I have a really good idea... Although not toooo useful. Why don't we just create every single version of ?????? that might exist (I'm not talking about combining other characters with it)? Is there a maximum number of characters a username can have? --00:32, 15 August 2007 (CDT)

Unless you want to create and block 256 (according to Wikipedia's longest word in the english language usernames, hopefully wrong), Check the history of Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention for some long ones. I don't think so, you'll probably reach the block limit long before then. We'll need to find another way.--Rocky

^{(Talk - Contributions)} 04:40, 15 August 2007 (CDT)

Um, it would be WAY more than 256, considering this: More than just ? causes problems, +, %, and / do as well (the rest of those in StrategyWiki:Guide/Account naming will make you pick a new one, as MediaWiki doesn't allow them). Also, just one of those characters has to be there to make the account invalid, so there would be way too many permutations to create and block (well over 9 thousand, or 9 trillion even). --

Safety Skizzerz ^{Talk · Contribs · Spel Chek™ · VFG · RTFM} 08:39, 15 August 2007 (CDT)

Wouldn't the best action be to report this and just wait for the developers to take care of the bug? --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 12:48, 15 August 2007 (CDT)

Just asked them, you may find it at [3]. --

Safety Skizzerz ^{Talk · Contribs · Spel Chek™ · VFG · RTFM} 13:16, 15 August 2007 (CDT)

Looks like an easy fix, but do we have to download something or is it already installed? --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 00:36, 17 August 2007 (CDT)

It needs to be installed, as we don't have it yet. --

Safety Skizzerz ^{Talk · Contribs · Spel Chek™ · VFG · RTFM} 09:03, 17 August 2007 (CDT)

Account naming

Branching off from the previous discussion, I've decided to whip up a policy for naming accounts at StrategyWiki:Guide/Account naming. However, I need the community's approval/acceptance before it becomes a true policy. Please go to that page and let us know what you think of it (wording, what should/should not be allowed, the consequence, etc.). Once it becomes approved, I will put a basic outline of it on the sign up page and a link to the full policy so that new users can see what is/is not accepted as a good user name. --Safety Skizzerz ^{Talk · Contribs · Spel Chek™ · VFG · RTFM} 10:12, 14 August 2007 (CDT)

Looks good to me. --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 14:23, 19 August 2007 (CDT)

Weekend meeting

I would like to hold a weekend meeting this Saturday at 2PM EST (tentative date). Attendance is not required, but it would be welcomed as I am trying to get some opinions on our organization and how to best apply our programming efforts. I am also inviting people from Abxy to attend the meeting. Subjects will include developing additional features for Abxy and finishing its new backend as well as developing a forum system for StrategyWiki. We may also conclude with talks about how to coordinate advertising initiatives to promote both websites. If you can make it, it'll be a great help! echelon_talk 01:08, 15 August 2007 (CDT)

That's 7pm GMT, isn't it? I should be able to make that. --DrBob (Talk) 02:54, 15 August 2007 (CDT)

Sorry, I can't go to that one. My Eagle Court of Honor is on that same date, nearly same time and that cannot be rescheduled. So, someone will need to take the log for me. Also, is this a replacement for the scheduled meeting on the 25th or just an extra one? --

Safety Skizzerz ^{Talk · Contribs · Spel Chek™ · VFG · RTFM} 08:23, 15 August 2007 (CDT)

I should be able to make it so long as I'm not sleeping in. --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 15:12, 16 August 2007 (CDT)

I can definitely make this. Well, if I remember to set my alarm that is. Garrett^Talk 16:23, 17 August 2007 (CDT)

So... do we have minutes? Sorry I didn't make it. --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 23:42, 19 August 2007 (CDT)

I'm not sure if it happened.--Rocky

^{(Talk - Contributions)} 01:54, 22 August 2007 (CDT)

There was no meeting. Echelon never showed up. :( Garrett^Talk 15:19, 22 August 2007 (CDT)

More release dates

Time for phase two of my revamp of the release date system...system-specific release dates. Also included in this is the creation of the {{co}} template, so that icons can be displayed for country- or system-specific companies (i.e. publishers). The {{co}} template is in testing on Medal of Honor: Frontline. This template is based on the {{icon}} template which I've created, which will take an ID, and turn it into an icon (or text-based equivalent if no icon yet exists). When Blendmaster gets back, I hope he can start filling in the missing icons, and standardising them all as icons of the actual hardware (rather than the system logo). So far for the system-specific release dates, I've created {{xboxrd}}, {{ps2rd}} and {{gcrd}} and applied them to Dead to Rights for testing. I want to know what you lot think of this so far, and whether I should stop and revert changes, or continue to create the rest of the system-specific release date templates. Last one to reply's a mashed potato. --DrBob (Talk) 06:17, 15 August 2007 (CDT) Oh, and see Template:Rd/Documentation#System-specific for examples of how you can use {{icon}} to replace the old text-based stuff in brackets after release dates. --DrBob (Talk) 06:22, 15 August 2007 (CDT)

Looks great, I'm going to protect the images because they're on the main page.--Rocky

^{(Talk - Contributions)} 07:20, 15 August 2007 (CDT)

Done--Rocky

^{(Talk - Contributions)} 07:29, 15 August 2007 (CDT)

Using a format like the one in Breath_of_Fire_II is better than having to deal with a combination of a console and country release date template. Why not use that? --Tathar

(talk|contribs) 10:35, 15 August 2007 (CDT)

If, for example, you've only got one date when it was released on a particular console/in a particular country (and it also needs an icon for a country/console). The new templates can be applied to Breath of Fire II though; the edit I've just made to it should demonstrate. It's a bit messy though, since this game seems to have an inordinate amount of complexity in the publishing. Thankfully, most games don't. --DrBob (Talk) 11:11, 15 August 2007 (CDT)

As you can see, doing that for the release dates would be impractical if not outright messy. I propose that the method used in Breath of Fire II and a few other guides for re-released games be the standard for re-released games and games released on multiple consoles. --Tathar

(talk|contribs) 11:19, 15 August 2007 (CDT)

Maybe we can use the icon themplate for the systems it was released on.--Rocky

^{(Talk - Contributions)} 11:47, 15 August 2007 (CDT)

I tried that, and it didn't look so good. --DrBob (Talk) 12:01, 15 August 2007 (CDT)

As I said, Breath of Fire 2 is a case apart from everything else; it has one of the most complex release date setups on the wiki (believe me, I've edited hundreds of them). For the moment, I think release date setups should be decided on a case-by-case basis, at the author's discretion, but in the future I hope to write some guidelines. Something similar to how it's done for the actual release dates (not the publishers) for that game should be as you say, one pattern people could use. --DrBob (Talk) 12:01, 15 August 2007 (CDT)

Well being so complex and yet being able to have such an aesthetic look for its release dates shows that it is a very adaptable proposed standard. Other guides have used it before the BoF2 guide was even started, for example Zelda II: The Adventure of Link. --Tathar

(talk|contribs) 01:05, 18 August 2007 (CDT)

Zelda II can still add the release dates of its releases that haven't been added without using another format. A case-by-case basis has shortcomings that have been talked about every time something was standardized, and this can work for single-country, global, single-system, and multi-system release date scenarios. --Tathar

(talk|contribs) 01:17, 18 August 2007 (CDT)

I personally prefer not to use those new templates ({{ps2rd}}, {{gcrd}}, {{xboxrd}}). It looks much cleaner. I also find it much easier to read a word to figure out the console name instead of trying to figure out which console the picture is trying to represent. -- Prod (Talk) 11:26, 18 August 2007 (CDT)

OK. After a long ~~argument~~ discussion on IRC, we've decided to scrap the templates Prod just mentioned, and instead do things as described in the documentation for the new template: {{sys}}. --DrBob

14:11, 18 August 2007 (CDT)

Rearrange rd

Current suggestion that's been thrown around on IRC is to change {{rd|Year|Month Day}} to {{rd|Month Day|Year}}. -- Prod (Talk) 01:06, 2 September 2007 (CDT)

Couldn't we do both?--Rocky

^{(Talk - Contributions)} 04:32, 2 September 2007 (CDT)

Right now the template turns Year|Date into Date, Year. If the template was reversed all current uses would become Year, Date. The only way around this is by using #switch or similar, which complicates the template and unnecessarily increases server load. Garrett^Talk 05:07, 2 September 2007 (CDT)

As I said on IRC, I'm against this change, because it would mean ordering the parameters in an order inconsistent with their priority. You can have {{rd|Year}}, but you can't have {{rd|Month day}} on its own; it just doesn't make sense. It's good programming practice to have optional parameters after required ones, and the year is required. The only possible reason for making this change would be because the parameter order is apparently "confusing" as it currently is, yet I've never seen incorrect usage of the template, even from new contributors. --DrBob

05:15, 2 September 2007 (CDT)

Sounds good, I just didn't understand why. --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 13:53, 2 September 2007 (CDT)

Super Mario Bros. 2

That page currently links to a disambiguation page which leads to Super Mario Bros. 2 (Japan) and Super Mario Bros. 2. In reality, the Japanese version is what NA refers to as Super Mario Bros.: The Lost Levels (see this page). Shoud we move the Japan page to Lost Levels and the US to just Super Mario Bros. 2? I've been following the American naming scheme when working with the Wii Virtual Console page and I think it would make more sense to continue that way. What do you guys think?--Duke Ruckley 11:54, 15 August 2007 (CDT)

Technically, this would not be the correct way to handle the problem. While Nintendo of America may have refered to SMB2j as the Lost Levels, there is no such game title as the "Lost Levels". The official title of these two different games, in both regions, is "Super Mario Bros. 2", so the region must serve as the disambiguation. While the Wii Virtual Console page is free to refer to the game in any one particular format (in this case, American as you have chosen), the naming convention for the main pages on this site must stick to official names only. Procyon (Talk) 12:44, 15 August 2007 (CDT)

I thought it was official, since it was released in America under Super Mario All-Stars as the Lost Levels. Either way works for me. In fact, if we don't change anything that's less work to do!--Duke Ruckley 14:07, 15 August 2007 (CDT)

It's official as the English translation. He said that. But what he's saying is it was first released, officially, as Super Mario Bros. 2... in Japan. --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 16:16, 15 August 2007 (CDT)

Redirect Pages

I was think about redirect pages (don't we all), and it occurred to me that some people might come to this site and type the name of a particular boss or world, etc into the search field. So would it be acceptable to create redirect pages for popular bosses/worlds? For example, Meta-Ridley could redirect to the relevant page in the Metroid Prime guide and Wario Stadium could redirect to it's page in the Mario Kart DS guide. It would be a little harder for characters that appear in several games, such as Ganon or Bowser, but they could also redirect to the relevant series/category page. Would this be useful to the casual SW-user or am I just being pedantic? --RamonSalazar 14:45, 16 August 2007 (CDT)

I highly doubt that that would be useful, and to pick apart your examples...

Meta Ridley is in Metroid Prime, Metroid Prime 2, and (sorry for those of you that don't like spoilers, but...) Metroid Prime 3, and maybe a few other games. Which one would it point to?
Wario Stadium is not only in Mario Kart DS, but also Mario Kart 64 (and maybe a few others).

Plus, there are thousands of redirects that would have to be created then. I really don't think that it would be useful (if anything it would just clog the database). --

Safety Skizzerz ^{Talk · Contribs · Spel Chek™ · VFG · RTFM} 14:59, 16 August 2007 (CDT)

The reason we don't need to redirect to disambig pages for these terms is because by searching you'll be returned all relevant (and non-relevant) pages with the term in it. People should be able to find what they're looking for with just that. --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 15:08, 16 August 2007 (CDT)

Ok, point taken, they are not really needed. But the excuse of having to create thousands of redirects is a pretty weak one - only the most popular ones would need to be done right away. The rest would just be created as and when. Secondly, would the extra pages really clog up the database? When redirect pages were the Collaboration of the Month, people were advised to make as many pages as they could, even covering common mis-spellings of game names. --RamonSalazar 15:25, 16 August 2007 (CDT)

How do you gauge which ones are more popular? :-P I don't think we advised people to create redirects for misspellings of names, unless they were really common ones. My memory must've faded. Anyway, I disagree with this too. :-) --DrBob

17:39, 16 August 2007 (CDT)

Ok, I admit defeat on this one guys. But just so you know I'm not mental and making this stuff up, look here. --RamonSalazar 18:54, 16 August 2007 (CDT)

Yeah that is right, it's one of my first memories of strategywiki lol--Rocky

^{(Talk - Contributions)} 05:12, 17 August 2007 (CDT)

Anyway, Zelda II needs to redirect to the proper guide. Searching for the guide is useless, perhaps because the title includes a colon. I had a very hard time finding the guide yesterday, so it needs a redirect. --Tathar

(talk|contribs) 10:39, 18 August 2007 (CDT)

So make it Tathar. It takes two seconds. Procyon (Talk) 10:48, 18 August 2007 (CDT)

Company Categories

Ok so as I was copying info from Wikipedia to the Square EA page I decided to keep these three categories (potentially useful for categorizing):

Now, these three present several different categorization ideas that I think are important. The first collects companies that are no longer active; the second categorizes comapanies by age, and the third categorizes dead ones by the year they died. Although these are useful, do they work for our scope? The second two might almost be too much information, however I really think the defunct video game company category is useful for looking at those companies who aren't going to release a sequel to that awesome series you love... ya know? But, I have an even better idea for integrating these: automatic population via the company infobox, like we have for Template:Infobox. --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 20:15, 17 August 2007 (CDT)

We already have Category:Defunct companies (which is automatically assigned to pages which use {{company}}'s "closed" parameter), as well as Category:1998 and Category:2003. I don't think it's worth having separate categories for the years of company establishments/disestablishments, since there aren't going to be that many (one a year, maybe)? --DrBob

03:36, 18 August 2007 (CDT)

Pages needing Wikification

What do you need to do with these, many have no preformatted text or badly made tables or ASCII art so when should the wikify tag be removed or be replaced ith a cleanup tag?--Rocky ^{(Talk - Contributions)} 15:55, 18 August 2007 (CDT)

There's no point in replacing the tag; you might as well just go through them and clean them up, and remove all tags. But yeah, they just need general cleanup. --DrBob

17:10, 18 August 2007 (CDT)

Yea, many of these are really just cleanup/subpage candidates. I put pages there that I "planned" to look at as soon as I finished with the AGN->HN changing. I can give you specifics about what most of the pages need if you want to know (ask on IRC). -- Prod (Talk) 17:59, 18 August 2007 (CDT)

StrategyWiki:Projects

Category:StrategyWiki projects and all the included fun and excitement! -- Prod (Talk) 18:47, 18 August 2007 (CDT)

Link to discussion pages

Is there someway that the links to discussion pages could be modified so they look different if there is no talk page (e.g. Wikipedia has the text in red)? Maybe gray out the text, swap the background and text colors, or add a symbol/text if there is no page? I often check out the talk pages for articles I view/edit, and it would be convenient to know right away if there is no talk page to go to. - Koweja 16:25, 19 August 2007 (CDT)

Since no one has answered yet... I think that this is a definite possibility but its up to one of the beauracrats (Echelon, DrBob, Dan, PowerMatt). --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 19:17, 20 August 2007 (CDT)

I've modified the PHP to put the "new" class on the discussion link if the page doesn't exist (as it currently does for links in articles which point to non-existent pages), so now it's up to somebody to modify the BlueCloud CSS to change the appearance of the link when it has that class. (I don't have time, sorry.) --DrBob

07:51, 28 August 2007 (CDT)

I've just seen this and liking it! Baejung92 14:42, 29 August 2007 (CDT)

One slight glitch is in the "would like to create" in the toolbar of my user page, somehow the css has affected this and it looks strange(also note the links have always been purple).--Rocky

^{(Talk - Contributions)} 16:44, 30 August 2007 (CDT)

I did a temporary fix to your user page until a more permanent fix can be made (such as DrBob or someone else with server access assigning an id to each item in the toolbox). --

Safety Skizzerz ^{Talk · Contribs · Spel Chek™ · VFG · RTFM} 17:32, 30 August 2007 (CDT)

Ok, DrBob implemented ids for all the toolbox items to the li elements (so the discussion is <li id="t-talk">, for example). I've implemented that into MediaWiki:Bluecloud.css, so there shouldn't be any more bugs regarding this. --

Safety Skizzerz ^{Talk · Contribs · Spel Chek™ · VFG · RTFM} 19:04, 30 August 2007 (CDT)

Much better now. Thanks! - Koweja 10:38, 19 September 2007 (CDT)

Sims 2 partnership

I noticed from this diff http://simpedia.co.uk. They don't seem to have much in the line of walkthrough information which is good for us. However, they are still rather small, so I'm not sure if it's worth it. If we decide against the partnership, the link should be removed since they are essentially competitors. -- Prod (Talk) 20:59, 21 August 2007 (CDT)

I'd say no, just remove the link. --

Safety Skizzerz ^{Talk · Contribs · Spel Chek™ · VFG · RTFM} 22:07, 21 August 2007 (CDT)

I'll talk with me colleagues. —Supuhstar*

PC games

Since we're trying to reach gamers, and not technology people, can we stitch the various PC system categories back together? Not everyone knows that XP is 2000 is NT and some people have started adding them to the infoboxes. -- Prod (Talk) 21:04, 21 August 2007 (CDT)

I'm wondering why was it decided to use "NT" in the first place? XP and Vista are both under NT I think, and there are games that work with one but not with the others. Baejung92 21:52, 21 August 2007 (CDT)

The categories are named after the kernels (despite using an NT kernel, it was decided that Vista should be separate because Halo 2 and some others were artificially restricted to only work on Vista). This was first discussed last October, and was covered again in January. Since the kernel used doesn't automatically indicate (in)compatibility I guess it would make some sense to put them into a unified "Windows" category (MS-DOS, of course, would still be separate). Garrett^Talk 22:41, 21 August 2007 (CDT)

Yeah I think if we combined all three cats, and then on the infoboxes we listed them correctly for the operating system it would work out best, since those links would link to Windows itself. Oh hey, in redirects can we redirect to sections? If we had operating system info on the cat it might be useful to set those up... --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 00:12, 22 August 2007 (CDT)

Regardless of whether we combine everything into one category or not, I think that there is a problem in {{sys}}. I think that |windows should show the windows logo, regardless of whether the game is for vista/nt/9x etc. |PC would do the same thing. This doesn't affect categorization, it just makes it easier to list the games' release dates in the infobox. What do you guys think?--Duke Ruckley 17:09, 25 August 2007 (CDT)

It's not immediately obvious, but {{sys}} automatically adds the associated system categories. The Windows and PC categories are not used for games, so are not valid {{sys}} usages. I did this because the way it was before it would just add a category of whatever was in the first parameter, resulting in Category:GBA and craziness like that. Garrett^Talk 21:49, 25 August 2007 (CDT)

Okay, I didn't realize it adds the category as well... I guess the question I have now is what do I do if I don't know which version of windows to use? For example, Oni was released on Windows but it is not specified which version on either this site or wikipedia's. I went straight to the source as well. I'm not real familiar with which kernel corresponds with which Windows release so again I can't really do anything. I also thought it would be much simpler to just say "Windows" and then specify which in the main text or in parentheses after the release date. With categories, that's just too complicated though.

The only solution I can see right now is to put any guide that is in the Windows subcategories into the Windows categories as well. That way we can just specify Windows in the infobox. Then we can manually add the Windows subcategories (9x, NT, etc) if we know what they are. This would actually simplify things within the {{sys}} template as well as make it easier to use. Thoughts?--Duke Ruckley 07:27, 26 August 2007 (CDT)

It's been about a week since anyone last added to this discussion; if we're all agreed I'll make a start on this in a couple of days. This will leave only Category:Linux, Category:MS-DOS, and the new Category:Windows, with Category:PC remaining the empty parent of all three. Garrett^Talk 05:23, 2 September 2007 (CDT)

I could deal with merging 9x and NT, since 99% of NT games run on 9x (I think), but we have to keep Vista separate due to the fact that Vista games will not run on anything older. A note in parentheses just won't cut it, and such fundamental incompatibilities have to be indicated by the guide's categorisation. (Sorry for the late reply.) --DrBob

11:43, 2 September 2007 (CDT)

Yeah, I keep forgetting about Vista. :) The Games for Windows boxes make it clear which titles require Vista, so it shouldn't be too confusing to keep that aspect of categorisation. Garrett^Talk 16:36, 2 September 2007 (CDT)

Or, that could be in the system requirements. -- Prod (Talk) 17:27, 2 September 2007 (CDT)

Oh, and Windows 3.1 could be merged with MS-DOS. --DrBob

17:33, 2 September 2007 (CDT)

Release Date fix needed

So if you look at some pages you'll see the new usage of the release date templates causes them to take up two lines. It's an unnecessary waste of space, as you can see the huge amount available on the right side. So, I'm not sure which template needs to be adjusted; probably Template:Release date, but what should we do? Specify a width? Like, 100%... I don't think it has anything to do with the use of sys or the icon floating right because I tested several icons of various heights... If need be we can also add some width to the area by adjusting Template:Infobox so that the headers take up a smaller width. I did this by throwing in a specified width on one header (90px)... see User:Notmyhandle/Sandbox4. --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 15:25, 22 August 2007 (CDT)

eh? How about some examples of broken pages? :-) --DrBob

10:12, 27 August 2007 (CDT)

Grand Theft Auto: Vice City is the one that comes to mind; all its dates are fine but, at the time of writing, the Xbox date is on two lines. I tried various ways of arranging the templates in an attempt to fix this, but in the end I gave up and saved it. It appears like that in both IE 7 and Firefox 2.0.0.6. Garrett^Talk 04:40, 31 August 2007 (CDT)

Fixed. --DrBob

09:13, 1 September 2007 (CDT)

Are we going to change the syntax of these (see discussion on rd talk page)? --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 12:37, 2 September 2007 (CDT)

Discussion's here. --DrBob

13:06, 2 September 2007 (CDT)

Video game crack uploaded

Here, a crack.ace file has been uploaded. I have absolutely no idea what to do with it with it to delete it and I kinda don't want to go to the page in case it runs (According to wikipedia .ace is like .zip and you can't really tell what it is).--Rocky ^{(Talk - Contributions)} 04:06, 23 August 2007 (CDT)

Simply going to Image:Crack.ace won't execute the file. You have to download it and then run it first. That said it's only 340B, so I can't see it containing anything particularly useful to the site. I'd just go ahead and delete it. - Koweja 06:28, 23 August 2007 (CDT)

Thanks.--Rocky

^{(Talk - Contributions)} 07:13, 23 August 2007 (CDT)

Based on the size, I'd guess that the file was a virus, not even a crack. I'd recommend anyone who downloaded that file not to run it. Also, we don't support non-image/video files so they should be deleted anywayz. -- Prod (Talk) 13:17, 23 August 2007 (CDT)

Yeah, that's why I didn't want to go to the image page unless it ran, luckily I think windows needs a decoder to decompress those files.--Rocky

^{(Talk - Contributions)} 13:24, 23 August 2007 (CDT)

Yeah the program is called WinAce; it's their proprietary compressed format. --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 14:50, 23 August 2007 (CDT)

Reminder: Staff meeting on Saturday

Just to remind everyone, the next meeting is scheduled to occur at 2pm Eastern Daylight Saving Time on the 25th. All who can attend are encouraged to come to the IRC channel at that time. Procyon (Talk) 09:27, 23 August 2007 (CDT)

Sorry I missed it; I was on holiday. Could someone sort out a log, and update StrategyWiki:Meetings please? --DrBob

10:12, 27 August 2007 (CDT)

Community Portal

At the meeting we discussed a redesign of the Community Portal which would be more useful as a collaborative tool. We've already rearranged it a bit, but we had discussed a couple new possibilities. The shoutbox idea is really cool, but until we can implement it, I had mentioned the idea of a projects box. Check out this page and see if you like it. If so we can go ahead and use it until the shoutbox idea can be implemented. All I really did was replace the DPL with projects (they could also use better descriptions, both in the Community Portal and on their respective pages).--Duke Ruckley 07:51, 26 August 2007 (CDT)

That's a very good idea, and much more useful than a list that's on the main page anyway. I say go for it. Garrett^Talk 04:35, 31 August 2007 (CDT)

Watching Pages

I was wondering if it is possible to implement an option to "watch guide" where instead of having to select every page in a guide, to select the guide itself and have it include all subpages and talk pages. For example, if I want to watch each EarthBound subpage, I would choose watch all on the EarthBound main page. Think this is possible?--Duke Ruckley 12:15, 28 August 2007 (CDT)

It's totally possible, but not a feature implemented into mediawiki yet. We could write our own script, however... All we need is a function that returns all the pages of a guide and then opens them using "http://strategywiki.org/w/index.php?title=PAGENAME&action=watch." That would be messy, but at least it would get 'em all done quickly (mediawiki browser bomb anyone?). --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 12:29, 28 August 2007 (CDT)

In addition to what NMH said, you might want to make sure it's down as a feature suggestion (option to watch subpages of watched pages) on MediaWiki's Bugzilla. --DrBob

13:08, 28 August 2007 (CDT)

Will do.--Duke Ruckley 16:36, 28 August 2007 (CDT)

Bug 2308 seems to be what I was looking for. However, it doesn't seem to have gone anywhere.--DukeRuckley^{Talk | Contribs} 07:09, 11 September 2007 (CDT)

Increasing Maximum Thumbnail Size

Karlcsr brought up a good issue regarding higher resolution systems and (old) people with bad eyesight/the desire for larger images. Can we at least give people like him the ability to up the thumbnails by a bit? How hard would it be to add 350, 400, 450 and 500px settings (or more...)? I think it's a good idea and another usability feature for our users. The downside to this is of course uncrisp/blurry/scaled images. It's their choice however, so why should we stop them? This brings up a touchy issue about the actual size of images themselves, like how big should sprites and other smaller/cropped images be? --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 20:23, 29 August 2007 (CDT)

First off, for those who aren't aware, logged-in users can change the default thumbnail size (go to Special:Preferences and click on "Files"), however this can only go up to 300px, does not affect images inserted at 1:1 scale (using |frame or simply no parameters), cannot scale images beyond 1:1, and is overridden by thumbnails with a specified size.

An ever-present problem is that big swathes of screen real estate are already taken up by the navigation bars (Wikipedia has only one). 1024x768 is currently the lowest average screen resolution; when using Blue Cloud at 1024x768 any image over 200-250px will quickly swallow up almost half of the available area. This is fine for lists, but for the average walkthrough the large size means that a lot of words are required to pad each image sufficiently before the next one.

As for sprites, generally we've been inserting them at original size wherever possible, or clean multiples of the original, as these present the best resulting image (especially on LCD displays). The problem is that while the original size works well inline the next cleanest multiple (usually 32x32) is bigger than the average default font size, and so disrupts the text flow.

This is largely a MediaWiki design matter, and not something we can easily change. Adding additional preferences scales is possible, but it would more than likely be overwritten by each version update. Specifying dimensions en masse isn't a solution either, as the large number of readers with good eyesight will find the oversized images disruptive to their browsing, and, in the case of sprite-based images, may even find the scaling makes them ugly. The best solution would be to submit a MediaWiki feature request for the thumbnail size to be changed from a drop-down to a text input box (meaning users could adjust it to absolutely anything they want) with an accompanying "override specified dimensions" check box, and then promote it on Wikipedia talk:Accessibility and the like. Largely aesthetic tweaks like this are much more likely to get done if a lot of people are asking for them. Garrett^Talk 21:30, 29 August 2007 (CDT)

I've just filed bug 11118. --DrBob

01:47, 30 August 2007 (CDT)

DB, have you seen the comments? Also, how does this process work, is it a potential change so long as it remains "opened" ??? --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 11:55, 30 August 2007 (CDT)

I'd forgotten about it; thanks for reminding me. I've now changed that setting here, so that you should now be able to choose 400 or 500px thumbnails too. To answer your question: yes. --DrBob

18:22, 30 August 2007 (CDT)

Thumbnail/Image Policy

Although each type of image needs its specific details (normal, frame, thumb, etc.); the main thing we need to determine is the policy regarding thumbnail usage and image size specification. I thought we had a disccusion of this recently, but it doesn't look like it according to our current CI topics. Image specification should NOT be used in conjunction with the "thumb" parameter because we emphasize the use of user preferences, which many people change to their liking (Baejung likes 200px, I like 250, Karl likes GIANT images, etc.). This is about THUMBS only, and I just want to make sure I have the right opinion on this topic, that we are all in agreement when it comes to the "when using thumbs don't specify an image size" policy (which needs to be placed somewhere for actual policy enforcement). --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 18:46, 27 September 2007 (CDT)

I'd be opposed to such a policy. There are two many images where having a flexible size is actually a bad idea, such as the maps in LttP. Procyon made them that specific size for a good reason, as it flows nicely with the page. Basically, there would be too many exceptions to the policy to make it truly effectual/enforcible. --

Safety Skizzerz ^{Talk · Contribs · Spel Chek™ · VFG · RTFM} 21:40, 27 September 2007 (CDT)

How about it as a general guideline, then? ;-) --DrBob

01:21, 28 September 2007 (CDT)

Those images are already set to be huge, for a purpose (they are maps). We're talking about the normal thumbs we usually apply to everything (250px standard). But yeah, we need SOMETHING written down for reference. --Notmyhandle (talk • contribs) 01:40, 28 September 2007 (CDT)

StrategyWiki talk:Community Portal/2007/August

Thumbnail size standardization/policy

More Infobox improvements

Misspelling Corrections - Everything?

System and Genre portals

How About a Top Ten

Donate?

Unresolved CI discussions

Priorities - What types are there?

Wiki Merger

Nominee template

Archiving

Permanent system browser

When "one game, one guide" fails...

Completion Stage Four

Header Navs on user subpages

Weekend meeting

More release dates

Rearrange rd

Redirect Pages

Company Categories

StrategyWiki:Projects

Link to discussion pages

Sims 2 partnership

PC games

Release Date fix needed

Video game crack uploaded

Reminder: Staff meeting on Saturday

Community Portal

Watching Pages

Increasing Maximum Thumbnail Size

Thumbnail/Image Policy

Navigation menu

Search